Part II: Who are the Students who take Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards?

1. Part II: Who are the Students who take Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards? Articulating the population Part II: Who are the students?

2. Outcomes for Part II: Articulating the Population • articulate the learning characteristics of the target population of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities • begin to build a theory of learning/cognition for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities • begin to articulate the theory of learning for students within your particular state (what you believe about student learning will drive your content standards and alternate achievement standards) Part II: Who are the students?

3. Alternate Assessment - Alternate Achievement StandardsDevelopment Site Map • Articulate policy guidance • Define assessment effective practice • Define population to be assessed • Define a theory of learning for assessed population • Review and articulate academic content standards • Use tools to evaluate content • Produce a content linking chart • Consider alignment procedures Part II: Who are the students?

4. Observation Interpretation Cognition Effective Assessment Practice: Interconnected Assessment Elements Pellegrino et. al (2001). Knowing what students know. National Research Council: National Academy Press. Part II: Who are the students?

5. Interconnected Elements • Cognition - a theory of what students know and how they know it in a subject domain • Observation - tasks or situations designed to collect evidence about student performance • Interpretation - a method for drawing inferences from the observation(s) Part II: Who are the students?

6. How Students with Disabilities Participate in Assessment Part II: Who are the students?

7. More different than alike… The number of students participating in alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards as compared to the total population of student learners and students with disabilities… Part II: Who are the students?

8. More different than alike… The total student population receiving special education services broken down by disability category… SOURCE: Education Week analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System, 2002-03. Part II: Who are the students?

9. Participants in Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards The following videos will share examples of students who participate in alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards. Part II: Who are the students?

10. More alike than different • It is not our purpose to develop a separate theory of cognition for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, but rather to: • understand within the context of our current literature, what might be problematic for students with significant cognitive disabilities, within this most important vertex of the assessment triangle as it is defined for all students (Kleinert & Browder, unpublished manuscript) Part II: Who are the students?

11. Issues in Teaching/Assessing Students in Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards • Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities present problems with learning in these areas: • Attention to Stimuli • Memory • Generalization • Self-Regulation • Limited motor response repertoire • Meta-cognition and Skill Synthesis • Sensory Deficits • Special Health Care Needs Part II: Who are the students?

12. Attention to Stimuli • Experience difficulty in attending to the salient features of a stimulus (e.g., size, color, shape, position) and which cue is indicative of the correct choice. Part II: Who are the students?

13. Memory • Experience difficulty remembering when to use skills. • Related to: • Inadequate learning opportunities • Insufficient opportunities to practice • Meaningful contexts (Westling and Fox, 2004) Part II: Who are the students?

14. Generalization • Experience difficulty applying what was learned in one situation to another different situation. • Must be demonstrated with different people, different materials, different settings, and at different times. (Haring, 1988; Fox, 1989) Part II: Who are the students?

15. Self-Regulation • Experience difficulty identifying the appropriate action for the situation. • Monitor own behavior • Evaluate own behavior • Self-determine • Meta-cognitive strategies (Whitman, 1990) • Improves with opportunities to practice and specific instruction. (Agran, Fodor-Davis, Moore, & Martella, 1992; Hughes and Agran, 1993; Hughes, Hugo, and Blatt, 1996) Part II: Who are the students?

16. Meta-cognition and Skill Synthesis • Communication difficulties may interfere with or compromise meta-cognition. • Difficulty applying isolated skills in natural contexts. • Relevant skills must be taught in clusters. Part II: Who are the students?

17. Sensory Deficits • Students may also experience sensory deficits in the areas of: • Vision • Hearing • Both vision and hearing Part II: Who are the students?

18. Limited Response Repertoires • Limited motor responses impacting • Oral language production (speaking) • Fine motor skills needed for writing and/or signing Part II: Who are the students?

19. Special Health Care Needs • May limit the number of days of school attendance • May limit the amount of alert time during instruction • seizures • medications Part II: Who are the students?

20. Universal Design for Learning: Application to Assessment • By considering student diversity during item construction, we should be able to minimize assumptions about student abilities which might interfere with the measurement of intended constructs Part II: Who are the students?

21. Universal Design for Learning: Avoid Retrofitting • Design assessments from the start based on the Principles of Universal Design for Learning • As with any retrofitted solutions, accommodations in assessment can result in: • Limitations in efficacy • Compromises to validity Part II: Who are the students?

22. Universal Design for Learning for AA-AAS • Multiple means of expression. • Students must be able to show what they know and can do • Multiple means of representation. • Students must be able to access the content of the assessment • Multiple means of engagement. • Students may need more time, meaningful activities, and contextual orientation (CAST, 2002) Part II: Who are the students?

23. Checkpoint • Why is it important to know who the students are and describe their learning characteristics? • What impact do student characteristics have on the assessment triangle? • cognition • observation • inference Part II: Who are the students?

24. References Agran, M., Fordor-Davis, J., Moore, S., & Martella, R. (1992). Effects of peer-delivered, self instructional training on a lunch-making task for students with severe disabilities.Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 230-240. Billingsley, F., Galluci, C., Peck, C., Schwartz, I., & Staub, D. (1996). “But those kids can’t even do math”: An alternative conceptualization of outcomes in special education. Special Education Leadership Review,3(1), 43-55. Brown, L., Nisbert, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., Shiraga, B., York, J., et al. (1983). The critical need for non-school instruction in educational programs for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 71-77. Center for Applied Special Technology. (CAST). (2002). www.cast.org. Fox, L. (1989). Stimulus generalization of skills and persons with profound mental handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 219-299. Haring, N. (1998). Generalization for students with severe handicaps: Strategies and solutions. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Hughes, C. & Agran, M. (1993). Teaching persons with severe disabilities to use self instruction in community settings: An analysis of the application. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 261-274. Hughes, C. Hugo, K., & Blatt, J. ( 1996). Self instructional intervention for teaching generalized problem solving with a functional task sequence. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 100, 565- 579. Kleinert, H., & Browder, D. (2005). Implications of the “Assessment Triangle” for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: The First Vertex – Models of Student Cognition. Unpublished manuscript. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching Students With Severe Disabilities.Columbus: Pearson Merrill. Whitman, T. L. (1990). Self- regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 347-362. U. S. Department of Education. (2002-2003).Education Week analysis of data from the Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System. Part II: Who are the students?